> I've seen the comments about FTM before - seems like a bad case of > nerdiness hit the most recent version. > > I've also been less than happy with some of the changes at > ancestry.com, but have found workarounds - the first being to not > use the default search screen. > > John <news@picaxe.us> John- FTM 2008 isn't the latest version of FTM. 2009 is the current version and although I don't use FTM (I use RootsMagic) I've heard that FTM 2008 was intended to be a beginner version and should have been named as such--but that 2009 reverts more to the earlier full-featured FTM software. So the problems may be limited to FTM 2008. In any case, I prefer RootsMagic. <g> Joan JYoung6180@aol.com

> I have subscribed to Ancestry.com since around 2000, and, for the > same time, I have kept my family records on Family Tree Maker. > > After 30 years of military service, 8 years of working at two other > jobs, 1 year losing a battle with Hurricane Katrina, 2 years of > losing my parents, wife and I spent 2008 building our house and > settling down. > > After moving in our first project was to attack the 12 cartons of > photos, documents, diplomas, marriage licenses, and notes that we > collected developed over the years. > > I ordered a brand new Family Tree Maker and loaded it on the > computer. FORGET IT. > > The newest FTM -- I think it's FTM 2008 -- IS A MESS. DAMN NEAR > UNUSABLE. > > I switched to Legacy and will not look back. > > Then there's the matter of the Ancestry.com search engine. As best > I can tell, over the past 3-4 months, they have changed their online > search engine three times and now they have settled on the absolute > worst possible search. > > I tried to find an uncle of mine to verify his death date in the SS > death index. With the new Ancestry.com site, I got over 50 hits on > his name, none of which was my uncle. I switched to the > FamilySearch site and found him in 30 seconds. > > Guess this is what happens when you employ a shop full of computer > nerds who feel that they ABSOLUTELY MUST "improve" things. > > "A Nonnie Moose" <moose@nonnie.com> amen, agree, best of luck

> snip > Then there's the matter of the Ancestry.com search engine. As best > I can tell, over the past 3-4 months, they have changed their online > search engine three times and now they have settled on the absolute > worst possible search. > > I tried to find an uncle of mine to verify his death date in the SS > death index. With the new Ancestry.com site, I got over 50 hits on > his name, none of which was my uncle. I switched to the > FamilySearch site and found him in 30 seconds. > > Guess this is what happens when you employ a shop full of computer > nerds who feel that they ABSOLUTELY MUST "improve" things. > > "A Nonnie Moose" <moose@nonnie.com> This is a blog for Ancestry Search project manager. Do post concerns there for her notice http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/author/amitchell/ I found the NEW so full of errors I switched back to OLD search. I come back to New every couple of months and repost any errors I find -- Ron Lankshear -Sydney NSW (from London-Shepherds Bush/Chiswick) try my links http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/ Ron Lankshear in Sydney NSW <ronlank@hotmail.com>

> I have subscribed to Ancestry.com since around 2000, and, for the > same time, I have kept my family records on Family Tree Maker. > > After 30 years of military service, 8 years of working at two other > jobs, 1 year losing a battle with Hurricane Katrina, 2 years of > losing my parents, wife and I spent 2008 building our house and > settling down. > > After moving in our first project was to attack the 12 cartons of > photos, documents, diplomas, marriage licenses, and notes that we > collected developed over the years. > > I ordered a brand new Family Tree Maker and loaded it on the > computer. FORGET IT. > > The newest FTM -- I think it's FTM 2008 -- IS A MESS. DAMN NEAR > UNUSABLE. > > I switched to Legacy and will not look back. > > Then there's the matter of the Ancestry.com search engine. As best > I can tell, over the past 3-4 months, they have changed their online > search engine three times and now they have settled on the absolute > worst possible search. > > I tried to find an uncle of mine to verify his death date in the SS > death index. With the new Ancestry.com site, I got over 50 hits on > his name, none of which was my uncle. I switched to the > FamilySearch site and found him in 30 seconds. > > Guess this is what happens when you employ a shop full of computer > nerds who feel that they ABSOLUTELY MUST "improve" things. > > "A Nonnie Moose" <moose@nonnie.com> I've seen the comments about FTM before - seems like a bad case of nerdiness hit the most recent version. I've also been less than happy with some of the changes at ancestry.com, but have found workarounds - the first being to not use the default search screen. John news@picaxe.us

WARNING: The following is a rant that serves no useful purpose but to allow the poster to blow off steam. I have subscribed to Ancestry.com since around 2000, and, for the same time, I have kept my family records on Family Tree Maker. After 30 years of military service, 8 years of working at two other jobs, 1 year losing a battle with Hurricane Katrina, 2 years of losing my parents, wife and I spent 2008 building our house and settling down. After moving in our first project was to attack the 12 cartons of photos, documents, diplomas, marriage licenses, and notes that we collected developed over the years. I ordered a brand new Family Tree Maker and loaded it on the computer. FORGET IT. The newest FTM -- I think it's FTM 2008 -- IS A MESS. DAMN NEAR UNUSABLE. I switched to Legacy and will not look back. Then there's the matter of the Ancestry.com search engine. As best I can tell, over the past 3-4 months, they have changed their online search engine three times and now they have settled on the absolute worst possible search. I tried to find an uncle of mine to verify his death date in the SS death index. With the new Ancestry.com site, I got over 50 hits on his name, none of which was my uncle. I switched to the FamilySearch site and found him in 30 seconds. Guess this is what happens when you employ a shop full of computer nerds who feel that they ABSOLUTELY MUST "improve" things. Rant over. "A Nonnie Moose" <moose@nonnie.com>

> Most scanners supply software that will permit you to preview the > document red and "clip" off areas that you do not want prior to the > "for real" scan. This way you can use a higher pixels per inch for > the real thing than you might if you are scanning the whole screen. > > Edward Feustel <efeustel@hughes.net> Ed: thanks, I never thought of checking for that, will do. When I scan a picture I usually do some cropping before I save it. With this new computer and scanner I'm able to save them at higher pixels than I was using with my old scanner. Pat "Patricia Kantzer" <mkdoc@roadrunner.com>

> > Yes, I know the album is heavy. Still, I suspect most scanners can > > handle it. > > > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> > > Yes, I know some scanners have a different type hinge on them so > that you can place books on them, but this one does not. I thought > of covering the platen on areas where the pages do not cover and > leaving the scanner lid open. > > "Patricia Kantzer" <mkdoc@roadrunner.com> Patricia, Most scanners supply software that will permit you to preview the document red and "clip" off areas that you do not want prior to the "for real" scan. This way you can use a higher pixels per inch for the real thing than you might if you are scanning the whole screen. Ed Edward Feustel <efeustel@hughes.net>

rosann, your message came though with formatting showing as characters and your email address looked very odd: =R.A.Wilson4138=22 <rawilson4138=40yahoo.com@linkpendium.com>. However your address at the bottom of the message does no contain the Linkpendium How are you composing your email, how did you send it to GENMTD, via email to the list or via usegroup? bob gillis =22R.A.Wilson=22 wrote: > Hi all=21=A0 I'm new to the list.=A0 I'm also new to genealogy, but I > am= =A0 already quite addicted to the entire research process. > > I am in library school and have chosen genealogy as a library genre > to=A0 explore for one of my classes.=A0 I'd love to hear from others > about why=A0 you have chosen genealogy.=A0 What appeals to you about > genealogy?=A0 Why=A0 have you chosen to read/view it over other > genres? I do not think of genre as a good term for genealogy. It usually refers to a type of literature or art. genealogy is the study of family descent or ancestry, Most people do genealogy as a hobby, to learn more about where they came from, like to research Some people do genealogy as a profession, either finding information for clients, writing books and articles on genealogy or teaching others how to do research. Aficionados also do these things > Also, what genealogy resources do you use on a regular basis to keep > up=A0 with new content (whether it be new publications, research > centers,=A0websites, etc). My main source of new content is through mailing lists but I also find new content by search engines. Others attend genealogy clubs, belong to genealogy organizations read genealogy magazines and journals. bob gillis > Thanks, Rosann > > =22R.A. Wilson=22 <rawilson4138=40yahoo.com> bob gillis <robertgillis@verizon.net>

> Hi all=21=A0 I'm new to the list.=A0 I'm also new to genealogy, but I am= > =A0 > already quite addicted to the entire research process. > > I am in library school and have chosen genealogy as a library genre > to=A0 explore for one of my classes.=A0 I'd love to hear from others > about why=A0 you have chosen genealogy.=A0 What appeals to you about > genealogy?=A0 Why=A0 have you chosen to read/view it over other genres? > > Also, what genealogy resources do you use on a regular basis to keep > up=A0 with new content (whether it be new publications, research > centers,=A0websites, etc). > > Thanks, > Rosann > > =22R.A. Wilson=22 <rawilson4138=40yahoo.com> Rosann, you might try using plain text to write your emails, because it was hard to read this way. [ That's generally a good idea when writing to lists and newsgroups. If you possibly can, you want to configure your mail program to post in 7-bit plain, unformatted text. - Mod ] Michael Reich <mareich49@yahoo.com>

Hi all=21=A0 I'm new to the list.=A0 I'm also new to genealogy, but I am= =A0 already quite addicted to the entire research process. I am in library school and have chosen genealogy as a library genre to=A0 explore for one of my classes.=A0 I'd love to hear from others about why=A0 you have chosen genealogy.=A0 What appeals to you about genealogy?=A0 Why=A0 have you chosen to read/view it over other genres? Also, what genealogy resources do you use on a regular basis to keep up=A0 with new content (whether it be new publications, research centers,=A0websites, etc). Thanks, Rosann =22R.A. Wilson=22 <rawilson4138=40yahoo.com>

"Patricia Kantzer" wrote: > [...] I know some scanners have a different type hinge on them so > that you can place books on them, but this one does not. I thought > of covering the platen on areas where the pages do not cover and > leaving the scanner lid open. Usually works for me. myths@ic24.net (cecilia)

> > Yes, I know the album is heavy. Still, I suspect most scanners can > > handle it. > > > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> > > Yes, I know some scanners have a different type hinge on them so > that you can place books on them, but this one does not. I thought > of covering the platen on areas where the pages do not cover and > leaving the scanner lid open. > > "Patricia Kantzer" <mkdoc@roadrunner.com> I have 3 scanners; I can remove the lid from all of them. If you select/define the area you want scanned, and don't stare at the scanner while it's working, you can get along without the lid. Cheryl

> Yes, I know the album is heavy. Still, I suspect most scanners can > handle it. > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Yes, I know some scanners have a different type hinge on them so that you can place books on them, but this one does not. I thought of covering the platen on areas where the pages do not cover and leaving the scanner lid open. Pat "Patricia Kantzer" <mkdoc@roadrunner.com>

>>>>>Got a question for you experts about photo preservation. >>>>> >>>>>Have recently acquired a family photo album where most of the >>>>>pictures are almost 100 years old. They are on the heavy card stock >>>>>and in one of those padded velvet albums, but the album itself is >>>>>falling apart. I intend to scan all these so that I can share them >>>>>with various family members. But when I take them out of the album >>>>>it may tear the pages slightly. Am I better off to put them back in >>>>>this album and keep them that way or should I put them in protective >>>>>covers and store in a different notebook? Some of them are tin >>>>>types. What is the best way to preserve them? >>>>> >>>>>Patricia Kantzer >>>> >>>>If the album is falling apart anyway maybe you should consider >>>>getting it rebound. Consult a bookbinder. He may be able to take >>>>it apart safely and then rebind it when you've scanned them. >>>> >>>>Tin types - dunno. It sounds like a question for a specialist >>>>conservator. >>>> >>>>Ian Goddard at goddai01@hotmail.co.uk >>> >>>If the cardstock is falling apart (as you say it is), check it for >>>its Ph value. To do so requires an ACID TEST pen. My guess is that >>>the album itself was made of very poor quality paper (with high acid >>>content). If the test comes back positive, DO NOT USE that album as >>>it WILL cause irrepairable damage to the photos. You are much >>>better off obtaining an archival quality photo album as it will >>>preserve these priceless images far longer than an acid based paper >>>product will. >>> >>>AE Palmer <surveyor999@a-znet.com> >> >>My guess is that someone in the family has attempted to take some of >>the photos out to see if there is anything is written on the back. >>And in the process have torn some of the bottom flaps that hold the >>pictures in place. I can tape those back in place. But if I have >>to take the pictures out of the album in order to scan them. in that >>process more of the album may be torn apart. Where do I find an >>acid test pen? a Photo Shop? I want to get my ducks all in a row >>before I destroy anything. >> >>"Patricia Kantzer" <mkdoc@roadrunner.com> > > Considering the resolution of current digital cameras (12 > megapixels), you might consider photographing the pages in place > instead of removing them for scanning. > > news@picaxe.us She could scan them without removing them, too. In case she has no better luck photographing objects than I do. (g) Yes, I know the album is heavy. Still, I suspect most scanners can handle it. Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

> > > What is the "standard" for the filing system to genealogy paperwork? > > > > > > I know that when a woman gets married, you still maintain copies by > > > her maiden name.=A0 So then, how do you file them - by the initial of > > > her maiden name or with her husband's name?=A0 Perhaps you make 2 > > > copies - one for her and one for the husbands file.=A0 Also do the > > > children get filed with their parents even after marriage or do they > > > get a separate file?=A0 Hoping for an easy solution :o) > > > > > > Nancy <nposs1936@yahoo.com> > > > > Yes, there's an easy solution :)) > > > > File your papers the way that's easiest for you :)) > > > > I keep all my families together and make an additional copy of > > marriage documents to go in with the other family.=A0 Everything is > > easy to find and all cross-referenced and in chronological order. > > > > Charani <SGBNOSPAM@ mail2genes.invalid> > > I would suggest putting the source reference number on each item (in > pencil) so that you can refer directly to your list of > [computerized] sources. > > AE Palmer <surveyor999@a-znet.com> Thank you, I appreciate your comments. Nancy

> > > > Got a question for you experts about photo preservation. > > > > > > > > Have recently acquired a family photo album where most of the > > > > pictures are almost 100 years old. They are on the heavy card stock > > > > and in one of those padded velvet albums, but the album itself is > > > > falling apart. I intend to scan all these so that I can share them > > > > with various family members. But when I take them out of the album > > > > it may tear the pages slightly. Am I better off to put them back in > > > > this album and keep them that way or should I put them in protective > > > > covers and store in a different notebook? Some of them are tin > > > > types. What is the best way to preserve them? > > > > > > > > Patricia Kantzer > > > > > > If the album is falling apart anyway maybe you should consider > > > getting it rebound. Consult a bookbinder. He may be able to take > > > it apart safely and then rebind it when you've scanned them. > > > > > > Tin types - dunno. It sounds like a question for a specialist > > > conservator. > > > > > > Ian Goddard at goddai01@hotmail.co.uk > > > > If the cardstock is falling apart (as you say it is), check it for > > its Ph value. To do so requires an ACID TEST pen. My guess is that > > the album itself was made of very poor quality paper (with high acid > > content). If the test comes back positive, DO NOT USE that album as > > it WILL cause irrepairable damage to the photos. You are much > > better off obtaining an archival quality photo album as it will > > preserve these priceless images far longer than an acid based paper > > product will. > > > > AE Palmer <surveyor999@a-znet.com> > > My guess is that someone in the family has attempted to take some of > the photos out to see if there is anything is written on the back. > And in the process have torn some of the bottom flaps that hold the > pictures in place. I can tape those back in place. But if I have > to take the pictures out of the album in order to scan them. in that > process more of the album may be torn apart. Where do I find an > acid test pen? a Photo Shop? I want to get my ducks all in a row > before I destroy anything. > > "Patricia Kantzer" <mkdoc@roadrunner.com> Acid test pen: http://www.webyfl.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=45

> > > > Got a question for you experts about photo preservation. > > > > > > > > Have recently acquired a family photo album where most of the > > > > pictures are almost 100 years old. They are on the heavy card stock > > > > and in one of those padded velvet albums, but the album itself is > > > > falling apart. I intend to scan all these so that I can share them > > > > with various family members. But when I take them out of the album > > > > it may tear the pages slightly. Am I better off to put them back in > > > > this album and keep them that way or should I put them in protective > > > > covers and store in a different notebook? Some of them are tin > > > > types. What is the best way to preserve them? > > > > > > > > Patricia Kantzer > > > > > > If the album is falling apart anyway maybe you should consider > > > getting it rebound. Consult a bookbinder. He may be able to take > > > it apart safely and then rebind it when you've scanned them. > > > > > > Tin types - dunno. It sounds like a question for a specialist > > > conservator. > > > > > > Ian Goddard at goddai01@hotmail.co.uk > > > > If the cardstock is falling apart (as you say it is), check it for > > its Ph value. To do so requires an ACID TEST pen. My guess is that > > the album itself was made of very poor quality paper (with high acid > > content). If the test comes back positive, DO NOT USE that album as > > it WILL cause irrepairable damage to the photos. You are much > > better off obtaining an archival quality photo album as it will > > preserve these priceless images far longer than an acid based paper > > product will. > > > > AE Palmer <surveyor999@a-znet.com> > > My guess is that someone in the family has attempted to take some of > the photos out to see if there is anything is written on the back. > And in the process have torn some of the bottom flaps that hold the > pictures in place. I can tape those back in place. But if I have > to take the pictures out of the album in order to scan them. in that > process more of the album may be torn apart. Where do I find an > acid test pen? a Photo Shop? I want to get my ducks all in a row > before I destroy anything. > > "Patricia Kantzer" <mkdoc@roadrunner.com> Considering the resolution of current digital cameras (12 megapixels), you might consider photographing the pages in place instead of removing them for scanning. John

> I have a family photo that's about 35 years old -- 2-1/2 inches > square. It was mounted in a metal frame with the photo against the > glass. I'm trying to remove it but a portion of the photo is stuck > to the glass. > > I tried to slide a razor blade between the photo and the glass but > it looks as though this will only ruin the photo by tearing off the > top layer of the photo -- which contains the photo. > > Any suggestions as to how to separate photo from glass?? > > "A-non-i-moose" <someone@somewhere.com> Join VINTAGE-PHOTOS on RootsWeb and search and ask there. bob gillis

> > > Got a question for you experts about photo preservation. > > > > > > Have recently acquired a family photo album where most of the > > > pictures are almost 100 years old. They are on the heavy card stock > > > and in one of those padded velvet albums, but the album itself is > > > falling apart. I intend to scan all these so that I can share them > > > with various family members. But when I take them out of the album > > > it may tear the pages slightly. Am I better off to put them back in > > > this album and keep them that way or should I put them in protective > > > covers and store in a different notebook? Some of them are tin > > > types. What is the best way to preserve them? > > > > > > Patricia Kantzer > > > > If the album is falling apart anyway maybe you should consider > > getting it rebound. Consult a bookbinder. He may be able to take > > it apart safely and then rebind it when you've scanned them. > > > > Tin types - dunno. It sounds like a question for a specialist > > conservator. > > > > Ian Goddard at goddai01@hotmail.co.uk > > If the cardstock is falling apart (as you say it is), check it for > its Ph value. To do so requires an ACID TEST pen. My guess is that > the album itself was made of very poor quality paper (with high acid > content). If the test comes back positive, DO NOT USE that album as > it WILL cause irrepairable damage to the photos. You are much > better off obtaining an archival quality photo album as it will > preserve these priceless images far longer than an acid based paper > product will. > > AE Palmer <surveyor999@a-znet.com> My guess is that someone in the family has attempted to take some of the photos out to see if there is anything is written on the back. And in the process have torn some of the bottom flaps that hold the pictures in place. I can tape those back in place. But if I have to take the pictures out of the album in order to scan them. in that process more of the album may be torn apart. Where do I find an acid test pen? a Photo Shop? I want to get my ducks all in a row before I destroy anything. Pat "Patricia Kantzer" <mkdoc@roadrunner.com>

> > Got a question for you experts about photo preservation. > > > > Have recently acquired a family photo album where most of the > > pictures are almost 100 years old. They are on the heavy card stock > > and in one of those padded velvet albums, but the album itself is > > falling apart. I intend to scan all these so that I can share them > > with various family members. But when I take them out of the album > > it may tear the pages slightly. Am I better off to put them back in > > this album and keep them that way or should I put them in protective > > covers and store in a different notebook? Some of them are tin > > types. What is the best way to preserve them? > > > > Patricia Kantzer > > If the album is falling apart anyway maybe you should consider > getting it rebound. Consult a bookbinder. He may be able to take > it apart safely and then rebind it when you've scanned them. > > Tin types - dunno. It sounds like a question for a specialist > conservator. > > Ian Goddard at goddai01@hotmail.co.uk If the cardstock is falling apart (as you say it is), check it for its Ph value. To do so requires an ACID TEST pen. My guess is that the album itself was made of very poor quality paper (with high acid content). If the test comes back positive, DO NOT USE that album as it WILL cause irrepairable damage to the photos. You are much better off obtaining an archival quality photo album as it will preserve these priceless images far longer than an acid based paper product will. Regards, Arnold <><><><><><><><><><><> Arrowhead Images <surveyor999 AT a-znet.com> <><><><><><><><><><><> "There are two lasting bequests we can give our children; one is roots, the other is wings." (Hodding Carter, Jr.) AE Palmer <surveyor999@a-znet.com>